I notice those words used a lot when describing certain types of decks, such as "B/W tokens is a tier 3 deck." Is it that tier 1 decks are the premier decks, tier 2 decks are kinda competitive, and tier 3 decks are just for fun?
Tiers as popularity - in many competitive games, you can stratify the scene as a function of what's played and how much it is, and assuming people play what's most competitively viable, then popularity correlates to viability. And so you have tiers ranked according to how much it defines the scene.
Tiers as power levels - the misappropriated version of tiers. As before, we're assuming popularity lines up with viability, so when you construct tiers, one can say the tiers rather than representing popularity of a strategy instead represent relative power levels; after all, would a strategy be employed if it did not win?
So, in the general sense, we see that tiers are just some arbitrary metric of what's in fashion at the moment. For Magic, the usual rule of thumb, if you want to break it down into a three-tier distribution, is that tier 1 represents the staple archetypes of the metagame, tier 2 the stuff that occasionally sees play but hasn't penetrated the format so as to be deemed tier 1, and tier 3 are known quantities that tend to be very under the radar for reasons not merely limited to competitive viability.
As far as I'm concerned and am familiar with a 'tier 1 deck' is essentially a deck that will give you the best chance to win in the general meta. These decks are frequently found to win tournaments. Example, Melira Pod is commonly considered a tier 1 deck.
Tier 2 is a deck that whilst competitive may not be as well placed within the meta or just overall a little weaker. Example, I'd consider Modern Merfolk to be a tier 2 deck.
Tier 3 decks are rarely talked about so I suspect there may be some difference as to what a tier 3 deck entails but I'd assume we're talking about a deck that's downright badly placed in the meta or just on a low power level. I'd expect it to be a deck played for fun, budget or theme purposes rather than for competitiveness. Perhaps a deck like Battle of the Wits would be an appropriate example (although if there is a tier 4 I'd probably place it there).
This is correct. Tiers refer to power level, not popularity
As far as I'm concerned and am familiar with a 'tier 1 deck' is essentially a deck that will give you the best chance to win in the general meta. These decks are frequently found to win tournaments. Example, Melira Pod is commonly considered a tier 1 deck.
Tier 2 is a deck that whilst competitive may not be as well placed within the meta or just overall a little weaker. Example, I'd consider Modern Merfolk to be a tier 2 deck.
Tier 3 decks are rarely talked about so I suspect there may be some difference as to what a tier 3 deck entails but I'd assume we're talking about a deck that's downright badly placed in the meta or just on a low power level. I'd expect it to be a deck played for fun, budget or theme purposes rather than for competitiveness. Perhaps a deck like Battle of the Wits would be an appropriate example (although if there is a tier 4 I'd probably place it there).
This is correct. Tiers refer to power level, not popularity
Its actually a measure of popularity, but folks like you automatically translate that directly into power level. The transition works most of the time but there are certainly exceptions. Just remember, power level is always relative.
As far as I'm concerned and am familiar with a 'tier 1 deck' is essentially a deck that will give you the best chance to win in the general meta. These decks are frequently found to win tournaments. Example, Melira Pod is commonly considered a tier 1 deck.
Tier 2 is a deck that whilst competitive may not be as well placed within the meta or just overall a little weaker. Example, I'd consider Modern Merfolk to be a tier 2 deck.
Tier 3 decks are rarely talked about so I suspect there may be some difference as to what a tier 3 deck entails but I'd assume we're talking about a deck that's downright badly placed in the meta or just on a low power level. I'd expect it to be a deck played for fun, budget or theme purposes rather than for competitiveness. Perhaps a deck like Battle of the Wits would be an appropriate example (although if there is a tier 4 I'd probably place it there).
This is correct. Tiers refer to power level, not popularity
Its actually a measure of popularity, but folks like you automatically translate that directly into power level. The transition works most of the time but there are certainly exceptions. Just remember, power level is always relative.
I've never ever considered it or heard anyone use the term to refer to a deck's 'popularity' (like in context of discussing meta and frequency of decks fielded).
EDIT: Googled around, the MTG wikis are contradicting each other. Interesting.
It's kinda the problem with using "tier" in anything, both meanings get used and have a degree of validity to them.
So people just use the word and the core meaning is (usually) understood regardless of what the perceived meaning is.
I think there's something in the field of philosophical linguistics that elaborates on this. Probably one of Wittgenstein's pieces, something about how when one says "game" you know what they mean despite the fact that "game" is defined in countless fashions and you'd think that with countless definitions there'd be confusion in what is meant.
Exactly. Jund hasn't been so popular because shelling out extreme amounts of cash for fetches, bob, goyf, lili, etc. is just too much fun to resist. It's popular because it wins.
Simply put, it is all about context. If someone wants to know what they will face tier likely means popularity. If someone wants to know about competitiveness then they say tier in regards to a combination of power, consistency, resilience, and meta positions.
The idea of power as discussed in this thread is itself misleading. On raw power, Ad Nausuem, Storm, and Affinity are higher than pod, twin, or jund. The first 3 can win before turn 4 often enough that it is not anomalous. Both Ad Naus and Storm have consistency issues and those as well as affinity have resilience issues. All 3 have wide variance in meta position. Pod, twin, jund have decent to strong levels on all 4 things I listed.
If someone is discussing a format as a whole, they generally are speaking of competitiveness in an abstract sense. In other words, which decks will perform best with what is known about a tournament. Tier 1 would be decks that are almost always recommendable in an unknown meta. Tier 1.5 would be much more meta dependent. Tier 2 would be basically entirely meta dependent for its performance. Tiers less than 2 would likely just encompass fringe, casual, new brews, and budget-friendly decks.
All of that of course is my opinion. I will rigorously defend the bit about using competitiveness in place of power though!
Tier 1: A deck that's considered the best in the format or very close to it. Most top 8s are dominated by tier 1 decks.
Tier 2: A deck that's highly competitive, but not a mainstream choice in the current meta (eg Bitterblossom Faeries now). Almost every top 8 has some Tier 2 decks, and if you are very good at playing a specific Tier 2 deck but not experienced with a Tier 1 deck, you'll likely do better with the Tier 2
Tier 3: Decks that are on the fringes of competitive, but that raise eyebrows when they win tournaments. These decks can still do well if they are tuned right, but aren't so rogue that noone knows what they are trying to do.
In Modern right now, UWR control is tier 1, BG Obliterator Rock is tier 2, and something like Stupid Red/black Burn is tier 3.
Tier 3 certainly isn't budget decks or some kid at your local store's Shivan Dragon deck, although a budget version of a tier 1 deck might perform about as well as a tier 3.
As far as I'm concerned and am familiar with a 'tier 1 deck' is essentially a deck that will give you the best chance to win in the general meta. These decks are frequently found to win tournaments. Example, Melira Pod is commonly considered a tier 1 deck.
Tier 2 is a deck that whilst competitive may not be as well placed within the meta or just overall a little weaker. Example, I'd consider Modern Merfolk to be a tier 2 deck.
Tier 3 decks are rarely talked about so I suspect there may be some difference as to what a tier 3 deck entails but I'd assume we're talking about a deck that's downright badly placed in the meta or just on a low power level. I'd expect it to be a deck played for fun, budget or theme purposes rather than for competitiveness. Perhaps a deck like Battle of the Wits would be an appropriate example (although if there is a tier 4 I'd probably place it there).
This is correct. Tiers refer to power level, not popularity
Its actually a measure of popularity, but folks like you automatically translate that directly into power level. The transition works most of the time but there are certainly exceptions. Just remember, power level is always relative.
MemoryLapse and some others have it right.
Here's where you dive further down the rabbit hole, though...
A deck that is considered tier 2 or 3 can win a tournament. But because it's considered tier 2 or 3, and is inherently less popular, there aren't as many copies of that deck floating around in the tournament. Because chance plays such a large role in the game, winning is usually a statistical measurement. If there were 2500 Pod decks at GP Richmond (completely made up number) then it only makes sense that you'd see at least 1 copy in the top 8. But if there are only 3 8Rack decks in the same tournament of 4300+ players, the odds are much worse that you'll see 8Rack at the top tables.
But that doesn't mean it can't win. It just simply isn't popular enough to get the amount of penetration in the meta game needed to start putting up numbers. So it's considered tier 2 or 3 while Pod is considered tier 1. The more people see a deck winning the more they want to play that deck.
The cards you play with matter - you don't want to bring an under-tuned list if you're being competitive - but variance, density, player skill, and, most importantly, a player's familiarity with the deck, all play very large roles as well.
Wouldn't tier mean most viable? The decks that are tournament level, that are likely the strongest at this time?
You could make the argument that popularity has nothing to do with it: I could see a situation where a winning tier 1 deck is new and only played by a few that know it.
It doesn't really follow.
How do you deem the deck tier 1? Surely not just because it won, right? The way you phrase it it implies something can be tier 1 before it wins.
Not to mention that if it proves itself, then more people will play it, which means more opportunity to further prove itself. Suddenly popularity rejoins the equation.
Get what I'm trying to communicate here? Something doesn't add up. We need to establish the motions with which something achieves tier status, and the popularity metric is an easier place to start than "if it succeeds, it's tier X."
Wouldn't tier mean most viable? The decks that are tournament level, that are likely the strongest at this time?
You could make the argument that popularity has nothing to do with it: I could see a situation where a winning tier 1 deck is new and only played by a few that know it.
This is incorrect, though. It really is popularity. Decks usually win by sheer attrition - there are more of that deck in the room so the odds favor it. That's not a measurement of viability, but one of popularity.
What you're referring to is "solving the meta game." If you know the meta well enough, you can potentially beat the popular deck. But that's still because you knew what was popular.
Wouldn't tier mean most viable? The decks that are tournament level, that are likely the strongest at this time?
You could make the argument that popularity has nothing to do with it: I could see a situation where a winning tier 1 deck is new and only played by a few that know it.
WHen you want to really see a concept just imagine it at an extreme:
Hypothetical GP - 4000 players
3999 - Playing Slivers
1 - Playing Twin
Slivers is Tier 1.
Twin is rogue.
What will the top 8 Look like?
Which is the better deck?
Well exactly what I mean. The twin deck (if it makes it to the top 8, suppose slivers is no different than a typical one right now) in my mind twin becomes an instant tier one deck.
The side effect is that it will likely gain popularity and then perhaps become the strongest deck.
Yeah but we usually call those decks "viable," not T1.
Let's take any example where someone takes a Standard decklist to a Legacy tournament and against all odds wins the whole thing. Is that deck actually tier 1?
Well exactly what I mean. The twin deck (if it makes it to the top 8, suppose slivers is no different than a typical one right now) in my mind twin becomes an instant tier one deck.
The side effect is that it will likely gain popularity and then perhaps become the strongest deck.
No you missed the point completely. What do you thik the odds are that 1 Twin deck in 4000 will have a perfect day and have a perfect record? The Twin archetype only has 1 chance. Dont forget, the sliver decks have Sideboards. A couple bad draws against some Spellskites or a couple mana screws and its over - and thats assuming perfect play which never happens. The Sliver archetype has a much greater chance at winning, despite it being the inferior deck. It is highly unlikely that the Twin player will even make Day 2. There no way to tell if the Twin player will even have a positive record!
This is just an extreme example to point out an important secret to you. The number of decks at any given tourney is not a direct measure of their power. Most people who play Magic cannot distinguish popularity from power. This is why people netdeck. This is their WEAKNESS! These lazy thinking netdeckers CAN be exposed and exploited by deckbuilders who can prey upon the predictable masses of lemmings that play this game.
I think the most intuitive way to look at tiers is in terms of top 8 finishes.
Tier 1 are decks that are represented in nearly every top 8, decks like Affinity, Melira Pod, and Twin.
Tier 2 are decks that occasionally make top 8, but not at every tournament. Usually these include decks that are powerful, but easily hated out like Storm; decks that were tier 1 at some point, but are not a great fit for the meta like Zoo; or decks that are slightly under powered compared to the rest of the field like Fish.
Tier 3 consists of lots of unproven, untuned, and home brew style decks. Unlikely to make top 8 and somewhat surprising when they do at larger tournaments.
Hexproof was always a super strong deck... but nobody played it until Reid Duke got 2nd at worlds with it. So all along it was an extremely strong deck but was considered fringe because nobody played it. This is the problem with people attempting to denote tiers as being power level. I think of it as arbitrary really. People try to make this game more than it is. It is a card game. It isn't that deep.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Would Dark Confidant still be good if he punched you in the face for 5 damage a turn?
Well exactly what I mean. The twin deck (if it makes it to the top 8, suppose slivers is no different than a typical one right now) in my mind twin becomes an instant tier one deck.
The side effect is that it will likely gain popularity and then perhaps become the strongest deck.
No you missed the point completely. What do you thik the odds are that 1 Twin deck in 4000 will have a perfect day and have a perfect record? The Twin archetype only has 1 chance. Dont forget, the sliver decks have Sideboards. A couple bad draws against some Spellskites or a couple mana screws and its over - and thats assuming perfect play which never happens. The Sliver archetype has a much greater chance at winning, despite it being the inferior deck. It is highly unlikely that the Twin player will even make Day 2. There no way to tell if the Twin player will even have a positive record!
This is just an extreme example to point out an important secret to you. The number of decks at any given tourney is not a direct measure of their power. Most people who play Magic cannot distinguish popularity from power. This is why people netdeck. This is their WEAKNESS! These lazy thinking netdeckers CAN be exposed and exploited by deckbuilders who can prey upon the predictable masses of lemmings that play this game.
Be a lemming hunter. Don't be a lemming.
We are saying the same thing. I realize in your theoretical example twin will likely not make it. I was trying to illustrate that a deck that has one one copy being played, if it's best in the current meta game should be considered tier one it just hasn't been discovered en - mass yet. And when it does likely there will be somet
In else that beats that and so on, so tier one always rotates in my mind however some general types exist and some just win more than others.
No need to get wound up calling people lemmings, haven't heard talk like that since watching bad 90 be movies.
Yeah but we usually call those decks "viable," not T1.
Let's take any example where someone takes a Standard decklist to a Legacy tournament and against all odds wins the whole thing. Is that deck actually tier 1?
Not at all, one time doesn't mean it's the best, maybe I'm not seeing the difference but I've always taken tier 1 to be the best platforms in the current meta in which to build a deck type with. If that's not what tier is then I'll just revise what my definition of it is. (More or mlress)
We are saying the same thing. I realize in your theoretical example twin will likely not make it. I was trying to illustrate that a deck that has one one copy being played, if it's best in the current meta game should be considered tier one it just hasn't been discovered en - mass yet. And when it does likely there will be somet
In else that beats that and so on, so tier one always rotates in my mind however some general types exist and some just win more than others.
No need to get wound up calling people lemmings, haven't heard talk like that since watching bad 90 be movies.
NO we are not saying the same thing at all. I am saying that Tier is popularity and you are trying to say Tier has something to do with power. You are wrong, but its an easy mistake to make because in the real world Tier 1 decks are quite powerful and easy to pilot. In my hypothetical example, Slivers make 100% of the Top 8, and the winner's decklist is revered as the new ideal of the archetype. Twin probably doesnt even make Day 2 and doesnt get cared about or respected in any way.
Now you and I both know that Twin is a better deck but it needs to be proven to the Sliver masses. How does that happen? You need a lot of people to play it, and then the odds that the archetype gets into the Top 8 go way up. The catch 22 is that no one wants to play a deck until its proven that it can win, and it cant win until a lot of people play it.
That is the true state of MTG. You have a bunch of popular decks that may or may not be the most powerful decks.
High Tier = High Popularity. There can be no arguing this point. The fact that people misinterpret popularity for power level is a weakness that can be exploited.
Lets have some fun with logic statements!
1) All Top 8 decks are popular.
2) Popular decks are powerful.
Tiers as popularity - in many competitive games, you can stratify the scene as a function of what's played and how much it is, and assuming people play what's most competitively viable, then popularity correlates to viability. And so you have tiers ranked according to how much it defines the scene.
Tiers as power levels - the misappropriated version of tiers. As before, we're assuming popularity lines up with viability, so when you construct tiers, one can say the tiers rather than representing popularity of a strategy instead represent relative power levels; after all, would a strategy be employed if it did not win?
So, in the general sense, we see that tiers are just some arbitrary metric of what's in fashion at the moment. For Magic, the usual rule of thumb, if you want to break it down into a three-tier distribution, is that tier 1 represents the staple archetypes of the metagame, tier 2 the stuff that occasionally sees play but hasn't penetrated the format so as to be deemed tier 1, and tier 3 are known quantities that tend to be very under the radar for reasons not merely limited to competitive viability.
This is correct. Tiers refer to power level, not popularity
Its actually a measure of popularity, but folks like you automatically translate that directly into power level. The transition works most of the time but there are certainly exceptions. Just remember, power level is always relative.
It's kinda the problem with using "tier" in anything, both meanings get used and have a degree of validity to them.
So people just use the word and the core meaning is (usually) understood regardless of what the perceived meaning is.
I think there's something in the field of philosophical linguistics that elaborates on this. Probably one of Wittgenstein's pieces, something about how when one says "game" you know what they mean despite the fact that "game" is defined in countless fashions and you'd think that with countless definitions there'd be confusion in what is meant.
Exactly. Jund hasn't been so popular because shelling out extreme amounts of cash for fetches, bob, goyf, lili, etc. is just too much fun to resist. It's popular because it wins.
Her Shop on Etsy
THS-KTK: Rabble Red
RTR-THS: Dega Midrange
INN-RTR: Boros Humans
SOM-INN: B/u Control
Modern: Mono-Black Infect
The idea of power as discussed in this thread is itself misleading. On raw power, Ad Nausuem, Storm, and Affinity are higher than pod, twin, or jund. The first 3 can win before turn 4 often enough that it is not anomalous. Both Ad Naus and Storm have consistency issues and those as well as affinity have resilience issues. All 3 have wide variance in meta position. Pod, twin, jund have decent to strong levels on all 4 things I listed.
If someone is discussing a format as a whole, they generally are speaking of competitiveness in an abstract sense. In other words, which decks will perform best with what is known about a tournament. Tier 1 would be decks that are almost always recommendable in an unknown meta. Tier 1.5 would be much more meta dependent. Tier 2 would be basically entirely meta dependent for its performance. Tiers less than 2 would likely just encompass fringe, casual, new brews, and budget-friendly decks.
All of that of course is my opinion. I will rigorously defend the bit about using competitiveness in place of power though!
Theros Myth Origins Part 1 WUBRG Part 2 GRBUW Born of the Gods
Beta Client Tutorial
Momir Basic Primer
Full article list
Tier 1: A deck that's considered the best in the format or very close to it. Most top 8s are dominated by tier 1 decks.
Tier 2: A deck that's highly competitive, but not a mainstream choice in the current meta (eg Bitterblossom Faeries now). Almost every top 8 has some Tier 2 decks, and if you are very good at playing a specific Tier 2 deck but not experienced with a Tier 1 deck, you'll likely do better with the Tier 2
Tier 3: Decks that are on the fringes of competitive, but that raise eyebrows when they win tournaments. These decks can still do well if they are tuned right, but aren't so rogue that noone knows what they are trying to do.
In Modern right now, UWR control is tier 1, BG Obliterator Rock is tier 2, and something like Stupid Red/black Burn is tier 3.
Tier 3 certainly isn't budget decks or some kid at your local store's Shivan Dragon deck, although a budget version of a tier 1 deck might perform about as well as a tier 3.
MemoryLapse and some others have it right.
Here's where you dive further down the rabbit hole, though...
A deck that is considered tier 2 or 3 can win a tournament. But because it's considered tier 2 or 3, and is inherently less popular, there aren't as many copies of that deck floating around in the tournament. Because chance plays such a large role in the game, winning is usually a statistical measurement. If there were 2500 Pod decks at GP Richmond (completely made up number) then it only makes sense that you'd see at least 1 copy in the top 8. But if there are only 3 8Rack decks in the same tournament of 4300+ players, the odds are much worse that you'll see 8Rack at the top tables.
But that doesn't mean it can't win. It just simply isn't popular enough to get the amount of penetration in the meta game needed to start putting up numbers. So it's considered tier 2 or 3 while Pod is considered tier 1. The more people see a deck winning the more they want to play that deck.
The cards you play with matter - you don't want to bring an under-tuned list if you're being competitive - but variance, density, player skill, and, most importantly, a player's familiarity with the deck, all play very large roles as well.
Standard: lol no
Modern: BG/x, UR/x, Burn, Merfolk, Zoo, Storm
Legacy: Shardless BUG, Delver (BUG, RUG, Grixis), Landstill, Depths Combo, Merfolk
Vintage: Dark Times, BUG Fish, Merfolk
EDH: Teysa, Orzhov Scion / Krenko, Mob Boss / Stonebrow, Krosan Hero
You could make the argument that popularity has nothing to do with it: I could see a situation where a winning tier 1 deck is new and only played by a few that know it.
GWBoglesGW///URDelverUR WVial-knightsW
How do you deem the deck tier 1? Surely not just because it won, right? The way you phrase it it implies something can be tier 1 before it wins.
Not to mention that if it proves itself, then more people will play it, which means more opportunity to further prove itself. Suddenly popularity rejoins the equation.
Get what I'm trying to communicate here? Something doesn't add up. We need to establish the motions with which something achieves tier status, and the popularity metric is an easier place to start than "if it succeeds, it's tier X."
This is incorrect, though. It really is popularity. Decks usually win by sheer attrition - there are more of that deck in the room so the odds favor it. That's not a measurement of viability, but one of popularity.
What you're referring to is "solving the meta game." If you know the meta well enough, you can potentially beat the popular deck. But that's still because you knew what was popular.
Standard: lol no
Modern: BG/x, UR/x, Burn, Merfolk, Zoo, Storm
Legacy: Shardless BUG, Delver (BUG, RUG, Grixis), Landstill, Depths Combo, Merfolk
Vintage: Dark Times, BUG Fish, Merfolk
EDH: Teysa, Orzhov Scion / Krenko, Mob Boss / Stonebrow, Krosan Hero
WHen you want to really see a concept just imagine it at an extreme:
Hypothetical GP - 4000 players
3999 - Playing Slivers
1 - Playing Twin
Slivers is Tier 1.
Twin is rogue.
What will the top 8 Look like?
Which is the better deck?
The side effect is that it will likely gain popularity and then perhaps become the strongest deck.
GWBoglesGW///URDelverUR WVial-knightsW
Let's take any example where someone takes a Standard decklist to a Legacy tournament and against all odds wins the whole thing. Is that deck actually tier 1?
No you missed the point completely. What do you thik the odds are that 1 Twin deck in 4000 will have a perfect day and have a perfect record? The Twin archetype only has 1 chance. Dont forget, the sliver decks have Sideboards. A couple bad draws against some Spellskites or a couple mana screws and its over - and thats assuming perfect play which never happens. The Sliver archetype has a much greater chance at winning, despite it being the inferior deck. It is highly unlikely that the Twin player will even make Day 2. There no way to tell if the Twin player will even have a positive record!
This is just an extreme example to point out an important secret to you. The number of decks at any given tourney is not a direct measure of their power. Most people who play Magic cannot distinguish popularity from power. This is why people netdeck. This is their WEAKNESS! These lazy thinking netdeckers CAN be exposed and exploited by deckbuilders who can prey upon the predictable masses of lemmings that play this game.
Be a lemming hunter. Don't be a lemming.
Tier 1 are decks that are represented in nearly every top 8, decks like Affinity, Melira Pod, and Twin.
Tier 2 are decks that occasionally make top 8, but not at every tournament. Usually these include decks that are powerful, but easily hated out like Storm; decks that were tier 1 at some point, but are not a great fit for the meta like Zoo; or decks that are slightly under powered compared to the rest of the field like Fish.
Tier 3 consists of lots of unproven, untuned, and home brew style decks. Unlikely to make top 8 and somewhat surprising when they do at larger tournaments.
Lol! I lost you at lemming hunter eh?
Seriously though the inabilty to distinguish popularity with power goes hand in hand with the netdecker mentality.
No I mean you could've totally gotten the point across without the soapbox~
We are saying the same thing. I realize in your theoretical example twin will likely not make it. I was trying to illustrate that a deck that has one one copy being played, if it's best in the current meta game should be considered tier one it just hasn't been discovered en - mass yet. And when it does likely there will be somet
In else that beats that and so on, so tier one always rotates in my mind however some general types exist and some just win more than others.
No need to get wound up calling people lemmings, haven't heard talk like that since watching bad 90 be movies.
GWBoglesGW///URDelverUR WVial-knightsW
Not at all, one time doesn't mean it's the best, maybe I'm not seeing the difference but I've always taken tier 1 to be the best platforms in the current meta in which to build a deck type with. If that's not what tier is then I'll just revise what my definition of it is. (More or mlress)
GWBoglesGW///URDelverUR WVial-knightsW
NO we are not saying the same thing at all. I am saying that Tier is popularity and you are trying to say Tier has something to do with power. You are wrong, but its an easy mistake to make because in the real world Tier 1 decks are quite powerful and easy to pilot. In my hypothetical example, Slivers make 100% of the Top 8, and the winner's decklist is revered as the new ideal of the archetype. Twin probably doesnt even make Day 2 and doesnt get cared about or respected in any way.
Now you and I both know that Twin is a better deck but it needs to be proven to the Sliver masses. How does that happen? You need a lot of people to play it, and then the odds that the archetype gets into the Top 8 go way up. The catch 22 is that no one wants to play a deck until its proven that it can win, and it cant win until a lot of people play it.
That is the true state of MTG. You have a bunch of popular decks that may or may not be the most powerful decks.
High Tier = High Popularity. There can be no arguing this point. The fact that people misinterpret popularity for power level is a weakness that can be exploited.
Lets have some fun with logic statements!
1) All Top 8 decks are popular.
2) Popular decks are powerful.
Q- Are all powerful decks Top 8?